Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I am here to protest what has been the most closed Congress in American history. I know the other side will recite the number of amendments that have been allowed, but the fact remains, this is the most closed Congress we have ever had: 84 closed rules and not one open rule.

We are sent here by our constituents to advocate for their interests, and in the minority, one of the few tools we have is the ability to offer amendments and have those arguments heard on the floor of this House. Knowing that we may not win every fight, knowing that we may not win a majority on each idea, we ought to at least allow the power of a good idea to have a fair hearing.

Twenty-eight times I have offered amendments, thoughtful amendments that were crafted with the idea that we could actually improve policy, and 28 times those amendments have been blocked.

These are not messaging amendments, just to give two examples:

One would have increased the amount of funding available to local governments that are struggling to improve their drinking water systems. Think about my hometown of Flint and the hundreds of other communities that would have benefited from that.

Another would have directed the Federal Government to do more to deal with this issue of PFAS, perfluorinated chemicals, that is poisoning groundwater. In fact, while the EPA is having a conversation today about this very dangerous chemical that is affecting human life in this country, I offered an opportunity for Congress to do something.

Why didn't we do it? Because up in the Rules Committee, it was blocked.

The ideas ought to have a chance on the floor of the House. That is what we are sent here to do. We ought to open this Congress up.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I am here to speak against an amendment included in this rule, the Foxx-Davis amendment, in defense of the 2,300 factory workers and 900 family farmers who grow sugar beets in my community.

The sugar program in this country supports family farmers. The company that is formed is a co-op formed by local family-owned growers who come together, and all they ask for is a fair chance to compete, to grow their high quality product, and to not have to compete with state- subsidized foreign sugar that is dumped if we don't have a program that protects our local growers.

The question is really simple. It comes down to marginally increasing the profits of large corporations or supporting family farmers who support their families by growing high quality sugar beets and sugarcane in this country.

This is a program that does not cost the taxpayers a dime according to CBO.

It comes down to a simple question: Are we going to support our own growers, or are we going to support foreign-produced sugar and moderately, if at all, increase the profits of large companies?

Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that the Republican chairman of the committee and the Democratic ranking member of this committee both oppose this amendment, for good reason.

It is a simple question: Do we want to support local growers like the 900 families that I represent who, collectively, through a co-op, own their processing facility?

This notion of mega producers is really a story of 900 families that collectively bound together in a co-op to own the production facility to deal with the sugar that they, themselves, grow.

This is a question of local growers or foreign-subsidized sugar using child labor. That is the simple question before us.

Mr. Speaker, Americans depend on good roads and bridges to get to work every day and to take care of their families. Good infrastructure drives our economy.

Americans depend on water systems to provide clean and safe drinkable water. But in this country, we have failed to make the necessary investments in water infrastructure, in roads and bridges, in essential infrastructure that is important to drive our economy.

I will work with anyone on any side of the question on both sides of the aisle to make sure that we invest in America's infrastructure. It is what we need to do to grow our economy, but, unfortunately, what the President has suggested really puts the burden on State and local governments, communities like the ones I represent. My own hometown of Flint, for example, if they had the money to put into their water system to prevent the disaster that occurred, they long ago would have done this. We need--our communities need a strong Federal partner.

And the Democrats, we offer A Better Deal. We have a plan to rebuild America's infrastructure. This is what the Congress ought to be doing. We ought not wait for the President to offer his suggestion. We should do the work ourselves. It is long overdue.

Mr. Speaker, it was a year ago this very day that Republicans in this House voted to eliminate healthcare for millions of Americans, something we knew at that point, if it went through, would increase premiums on millions of other Americans that still had coverage. And after that vote, they all boarded a bus and went over to the White House for a big celebration.

Thankfully, that bill never became law, because had it become law, people would not have been protected with health insurance if they had a preexisting condition. There would have been a terrible age tax imposed on people ages 50-64. It would have been a massive step in the wrong direction.

Despite the fact that that legislation did not become law, we are still seeing premium increases because of the undermining of the law of the land. The Affordable Care Act has been undermined by the Trump administration and by action by this Congress, and because of that, we are seeing premium increases again.

Forever, we heard from the other side criticisms of premium increases that were more in line with inflation in healthcare. Now, in Michigan, we see a 28-percent increase under this administration. Where is the outrage?

We ought to work together to fix the problem. The Affordable Care Act is not perfect. I am the first to admit it. Let's stop undermining the law and make it work.

Mr. Chair, I thank Mr. DeFazio both for yielding, but especially for his leadership on this issue.

As the ranking member said, this is something that comes up every year. Thankfully, Democrats and Republicans have stood together to protect this important worker protection.

Let's just be clear about this. This is about the desire to engage in this race to the bottom to pay working families less money.

The truth of the matter is coming from a community, a community like Flint, Saginaw, Bay City, where we have seen significant and continuing loss of earned income by working people, where we have a chance to say to the American people that when it is your tax dollars being spent, we are not going to use them to undermine the ability of a family to have a decent wage.

People work hard at these jobs, they have trained long for these jobs, going through apprenticeships or other skilled training, and the idea that we would reverse a decades-long commitment to the American worker that when it comes to federally funded projects, we are going to ensure that if you work hard, play by the rules, you get a decent wage, I support that, and we all should.

Madam Speaker, it is wrong that Republicans continue to pursue policies that clearly benefit only the wealthiest Americans and large corporations, in particular, leaving middle class Americans behind. They have undermined our healthcare system, raising premiums on Americans and increasing the cost of prescription drugs. That is the impact of what this Republican majority has done.

At a time when we see more Americans concerned about rising healthcare costs, we really ought to be figuring out ways to work together. I know Democrats and Republicans can do that. But instead, the Republican majority is focused on tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and the biggest corporations, essentially passing huge benefits--$250 billion--to CEOs and wealthy shareholders, mostly through stock buybacks, which is money that does not go to America's workers.

Now, Republicans are using their deficit-exploding tax plan to justify huge cuts that could impact Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. That is a raw deal.

Democrats are offering a better deal. We want to grow our economy and create high-wage jobs that support a family, not just so they can just get by, but so they can actually succeed. We have a plan for opportunities.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Nicholas Thomas Evans, a leader in my district and a champion for Genesee County families, who passed away rather suddenly just recently.

Nick was born in London, England, but raised in Holly, Michigan. Nicholas started his career as a leader in the Genesee County branch of the American Cancer Society. In 1998, he accepted a position at Kettering University, and in 2003, he came to the Genesys Health System.

During his career, Nicholas did so much and offered so much to our community, leading important initiatives like the Genesys Health Park Campus

Plan, the PACE program in Flint, the revitalization of so many parts of our community, and empowering women through the Michigan Food & Farming Systems and the Women in Agriculture program.

There were so many things that Nick did. I can't even go through the long list. But for all of us back home, we will just miss him.

His wife, Kim, and his daughters, Madison and Camryn, I am sure will miss him forever. He loved them, he loved his community, and he gave so much to his community. We loved him. He was a friend, and we will miss him.

Mr. Speaker, today is tax day, the day that hardworking Americans finish preparing their taxes; and it is already clear, looking at the new tax bill, that it will overwhelmingly benefit CEOs, shareholders, and the wealthiest Americans.

Since the passage of this Republican tax bill, corporations have already funneled $250 billion to CEOs and shareholders through stock buybacks, money that is not going to workers. Stock buybacks overwhelmingly benefit the wealthiest Americans and corporate executives. In fact, the richest 10 percent of American households hold 84 percent of stocks.

The CBO just released information showing that this tax bill will increase the deficit by $1.9 trillion.

So let's get this straight. The Federal Government borrows almost $2 trillion from our children and our grandchildren so that we can funnel hundreds of billions of dollars to the wealthiest Americans. Is that what we should be doing here?

I think not.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the CBO, released a report highlighting the fact that the budget deficit will pass $1 trillion within 2 years, thanks in large part to the massive tax cuts granted to the wealthiest Americans in the recently adopted Republican tax plan. $1 trillion.

This tax plan is projected to itself add close to $2 trillion to the deficit over a decade.

This reckless plan jeopardizes our economic recovery by taking away the

ability for us to invest in those elements of our communities and society that will grow the economy. The very thought that we have a massive deficit in our public infrastructure, and that is nowhere on the table in the House, roads and bridges crumbling, water systems, like the water system of my hometown of Flint, failing, and continuing to pass on massive debt to our children and grandchildren is irresponsible and it ought to be reversed.

Mr. Speaker, this Friday marks the eighth anniversary of the Affordable Care Act being signed into law. In the richest country in the world, healthcare should be a basic human right, not a privilege for some.

While the ACA is far from perfect--we know that--it made great progress, ensuring millions and millions of Americans that they could have health insurance, that they could have healthcare when they need it, making it more affordable, making sure that Americans with preexisting conditions were not denied coverage because they were sick or kicked off their coverage because they got sick.

Unfortunately, though, this House has spent a good deal of the last year or so trying to take back some of those advances that we have made, essentially, putting more families in the position of having that economic uncertainty of not knowing whether or not their premiums will continue to go up or their copays will go up, or prescription drugs will be available but completely unaffordable to them; putting families back in the place where they are, essentially, one illness away from losing everything that they have worked for.

We should work together because we know there are improvements that we need to make. We should work across the aisle to improve this law and move forward.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I am opposed.

Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is the latest attempt by Republicans to undermine the Clean Air Act and give breaks to special interests, this time to power plants that burn waste coal.

The bill undermines the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, the MATS rule, one of most important protections for public health from toxic air pollutants from waste coal-burning power plants.

Simply put, the bill would mean more pollutants being put into our air and our water by waste coal power plants.

And on that point, there is really no disagreement. That is the point of the legislation, to allow more pollutants to be put into the air.

But not only would this bill give waste coal power plants permission to pump more pollution into our air, it also prohibits higher standards from being enacted, even if future technologies are invented to help control toxic pollution emissions better.

My motion would protect public health and prevent more pollutants, toxic substances like mercury, sulfur dioxide, and other hazardous particles, from being released into the air and into the water.

These harmful substances impact brain development. They cause cancer. They harm respiratory systems. They pollute our lakes, our streams, our rivers, where people get their drinking water.

As this body has heard me discuss many times, I know firsthand what happens when we fail to protect our environment and when we fail to protect our water supplies.

We know what happened in my hometown of Flint, a city of 100,000 people, including thousands of children, poisoned by lead in their drinking water because of callous decisions by government that put the balance sheet approach, the dollars and cents that would accrue in this case to an operator, ahead of the interests of health.

For 4 years, the people I represent have not had access to safe drinking water because of decisions that were made by government that allowed the water to be contaminated with high levels of lead, a dangerous neurotoxin with irreversible and damaging effects on children.

America is the wealthiest, most prosperous country in the world. It is a shame that the people of my hometown can't turn on their taps and trust the water coming out.

What happened in Flint is the result of policymakers, again, putting the balance sheet ahead of the interests of people. We can't measure every question on the ledger of a corporation. We have to think about the health of our people.

Just looking at those short-term effects can lead to really bad choices. What happened in Flint is absolutely tragic. We ought to take that lesson and make sure that we do everything we can to prevent the consequences of ignoring environmental protections, the consequences on people.

Flint is not an anomaly. Flint is a warning.

What happened there could happen to lots of people all across the country if we don't take care to ensure that we protect public health and strike a reasonable balance between the interests of the companies that are, unfortunately, unwilling to comply as other companies have, as other operators have, with existing standards. The public interest has to come first. We should be protecting our constituents from pollutants, not enacting law that explicitly allows for more pollutants to go into our air and water. It is the wrong direction for us.

As my colleague Mr. Doyle said, Democrats and Republicans can figure out solutions to these problems, but the solution is not to take a step back and pass legislation that rather than empowering organizations and communities to protect air and water says these rules are too hard for some to adhere to; and because they are unwilling to spend the resources necessary to protect public health, we just say: Well, then it is okay.

We know what happens when government takes that approach. There are human consequences--consequences that we can't ignore, consequences that are made clear by the experience of my hometown. I don't wish that on anyone in Michigan or Pennsylvania, or anyone else.

Mr. Speaker, this Congress ought to do what it can to protect people from that ever happening to them. I urge my colleagues to support this motion to recommit, stand up for kids, stand up for the people who live in those communities who breathe that air, who depend on clean water. Support this motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, like my friend Mr. Perlmutter and my friend Mr. Huffman and others, we didn't come to the Congress with the idea that we were going to spend our time talking about Russian collusion with a campaign to try to undermine our electoral system. We came here to solve problems that Americans want us to take on, to deal with the big problems that we face, whether it is infrastructure or education or the environment or all the things that people actually worry about, financial security for families.

But we do have an obligation to uphold the oath that we took. We swore an oath to the Constitution of the United States. So while it is not my preference, and I know from my friends it is not our preference to have to deal with this question, we can't avoid it. We can't just look the other way, particularly when it is very clear that not just this President, but, sadly, some around him; and I think we have to acknowledge some of our Republican colleagues seem willing to try to interfere with or obfuscate what is a really important investigation.

Let's remind ourselves, Mr. Mueller, who is leading this investigation, the special counsel, was appointed by the Republican Attorney General, appointed by the President of the United States, both Republicans. Bob Mueller

was appointed head of the FBI by a Republican President.

This is not a partisan question, certainly not a partisan witch hunt. This is a question as to whether or not we are going to let this investigation go to completion.

The President keeps saying no collusion. The truth of the matter is, so far, there has been no conclusion. There is no conclusion to be drawn yet from this investigation, other than 17 individuals have been indicted. Several have pled guilty to very serious crimes, some people who have been very close to the President of the United States, the closest you can be, literally engaged in his campaign, side by side with him every day.

So it begs the question and, really, the most important question: What are they afraid of? What do they have to worry about?

If there is nothing to find, if there is no collusion, then let's let the process complete itself. Let's let the process come to conclusion and accept the result.

So this is really a fundamental question to our democracy: Are we going to adhere to the rule of law, or are we going to allow a President to rule by fiat and, essentially, dismiss or diminish or discredit anyone who raises any question about his conduct coming into or performing his duties?

That is not the America that we know, and that is not a standard that we ought to allow: 17 people indicted, people at the top of his campaign, including a whole group of Russians who clearly were engaged in trying to affect our election.

You know, don't you remember the good ol' days? I think about some of our friends on the other side, when the biggest scandal that they could come up with was that the President of the United States wore a tan suit. The outrage. Where is the outrage now when a special counsel has been appointed and, at every moment, there is an attempt to try to discredit the work that this individual is doing?

So I ask my Republican colleagues to stand up, adhere to the oath that they swore, support this process, allow for your own good and the good of the country, allow the investigation to be completed without interference. Push back when the President tries to discredit this process. There is just too much at stake. What are they afraid of? What are they worried about?

This guy is a professional. When he was appointed, remember the chorus of praise left, right, and center for Bob Mueller and the integrity with which he has conducted himself in public life. He didn't change. He is still doing that. Let's let him do his work.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Perlmutter for yielding, and I want to just underscore a point he made in his opening remarks.

This is fundamentally about a principle that we hold pretty dear in this country, and, that is, our freedom. Our freedom is rooted in the assumption that our democratic systems actually work, that the process of democracy has integrity, and that the choices that people make are not the subject of interference by some foreign power.

We know that Russia interfered in our elections. There are only two people I can think of who have denied that repeatedly. One of them is President Trump; the other one is Vladimir Putin. Everyone else, including our Republican colleagues and our intelligence community, acknowledges that the Russians interfered with our elections.

Five people have acknowledged that they committed crimes as a result of the investigations taking place; 12 other--15 others indicted. Why on Earth would we not allow the investigation that is taking place right now to determine the extent of that interference in order to prevent it from ever happening again? Why would we not insist that we protect that principle of democracy and that foundational principle of freedom by letting this process complete? What are they afraid of? That is the question: What are they afraid of?

That is why I am glad Mr. Perlmutter initiated this effort, and I will continue to stand with him as he does it.

Mr. Speaker, this week is Great Lakes Week.

As a Michigander, I am proud of the fact that Republicans and Democrats in Congress continue to work together to highlight the importance of our shared water resources and to protect the Great Lakes.

The Great Lakes generate billions of dollars in economic activity and provide drinking water to 40 million people. We have to do everything we can to protect them from harm.

Unfortunately, President Trump recently unveiled his proposed budget, which cuts funding to the Great Lakes by 90 percent. An important restoration initiative that has succeeded and has had bipartisan support, the President nearly eliminates.

Protecting our Great Lakes has never been a partisan issue. Democrats and Republicans have come together before to restore funding cuts that were proposed by President Trump. I am confident that we will come together again.

This Great Lakes Week, as every week, I stand up for the Great Lakes and those who depend upon them. They are a critical water resource that must be protected.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his persistence in offering this legislation. As he said, in committee, we had a successful markup where we were able to unanimously support this legislation. It is important legislation.

We don't agree on everything. One doesn't have to go very far. Back in committee, right now, where we have a rather contentious markup on a budget using estimates, as I said in that meeting: When we do agree, we should come together. Representative Barr and I have talked about this issue for quite some time, and I am really pleased to see it move forward.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2226, the Portfolio Lending and Mortgage Access Act, which would allow certain mortgages that are originated and retained in portfolio by a bank with less than $10 billion in total assets to be considered as qualified mortgages.

In the lead-up to the financial crisis, there were a number of mortgage lenders that did not do their due diligence in underwriting mortgages. We saw a number of exotic products being offered to individuals and families premised on a continually rising housing market.

These included ``no doc'' loans where the lender did not document or verify a borrower's income. There were real consequences for those sorts of loans. Many of these borrowers never really had any hope of paying back those loans. As those mortgages went into default, the foreclosures helped lead to a financial crisis that devastated the U.S. economy, and millions of families were stripped from their single source of wealth: the equity in their home.

In the wake of that crisis, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Act and required lenders to assess a consumer's ability to repay their mortgage loans.

We also provided statutory penalties for mortgage lenders that did not follow these new underwriting standards.

Congress also directed the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to enact regulations to create a safe harbor for creditors, where it would be presumed that the creditor evaluated the borrower's ability to repay.

In 2013, under the direction of former Director Cordray, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau released its ability-to-repay and qualified mortgage rule. This rule defined how lenders could take advantage of that safe harbor.

Qualified mortgages, commonly referred to as QM loans, are a special category of loans that have strong underwriting standards and certain nonpredatory loan features that help make them more likely that borrowers will be able to afford their mortgages.

So if a lender originates a QM loan, it means that the lender met certain requirements, and it is assumed that the lender followed the ability-to-repay rule as drafted by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. This also allows the lender to be shielded from certain types of liability associated with originating bad loans.

I and my colleagues were pleased that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau tailored the rule to ensure that lenders who serve rural and underserved communities have flexibility in serving their customers.

While that was a very good first step, Congress has pushed to expand this tailoring to include even more community banks and credit unions, consistent with safe and sound operations. H.R. 2226, as amended in the committee, provides this targeted and, I think, reasonable relief.

As Representative Barr and I have indicated, there are additional refinements to the bill that I would have still liked to have seen adopted, such as additional guardrails on the types of products offered. I am glad, however, and as Mr. Barr indicated, the leadership of the committee, the majority, agreed to crucial language offered by Mr. Capuano to improve the bill.

As amended, lenders are required to continually hold these loans in portfolio, and not only consider and document, but verify a borrower's income information.

Congress should not be in the business of allowing lenders to underwrite and offer mortgage loans that borrowers have no ability to repay.

I am supportive of this bill for that reason, but also because I believe it will help in areas of the country that have weaker housing markets. This has really been the reason that I have been interested in the issue of portfolio lending.

As many know, I represent Flint, Michigan, which not unlike a number of communities across the country have very weak and very low cost markets. You can purchase a single family home in Flint for $25,000-- not $250,000--$25,000.

Under the QM rules, financial institutions sometimes, justifiably, struggle to make these small mortgages, resulting in even more stagnant markets--it is a vicious cycle--and weakening these markets permanently. If we can't get people financed into mortgages, these communities and the market will never recover.

This bill will encourage community banks and credit unions to make those smaller mortgages, to help weaker markets.

It is for that reason and many others, but particularly for that reason, that I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation. It is a big step in the right direction for weak markets. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting it.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Madam Speaker, just to reiterate, we don't agree on everything. Even some of the debate in this conversation, I think we could find areas of disagreement. But when it comes to the specifics of this legislation, I think it strikes a good balance. The balance, for me, being the notion that we can deem these mortgages held by smaller institutions, as long as they are held in portfolio, as meeting the QM requirements.

In exchange for that, what we get is, in weak markets, we get a chance for folks who essentially have been locked out of home ownership to be able to get a small mortgage literally on a $25,000, $30,000, or $40,000 home and begin to build equity that will return value to that family and to that community for a long, long time.

For that reason, I support this legislation and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on it.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.